3 ms·

How can this be legal? They changed the terms and conditions after you agreed to them and provided you no way to opt out of the change?

Someone1234 6y ago
Even if it isn't legal are people really going to assert their rights in court? That's one of the major problems with having weak consumer protections in the US. If this happened in one of several European countries ticketmaster could be fined, but in the US each citizen needs to sue in small claims or will be forced into arbitration that may cost more than the claim is worth (essentially nullifying their rights, or losing money to assert them). Arguing that your rights have been violated with their customer services is a waste of time.
- jacobr1 6y ago
  While less efficient than regulatory action, the US does have a mechanism for this: class-action lawsuits.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Class action lawsuits are just another method of regulatory capture. The settlement from the last Ticketbastard class action was a $2 discount on expedited shipping and a voucher for a free show of your choice, to be chosen from an empty list.
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    > YOU AGREE TO WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL OR TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION. https://help.ticketmaster.com/s/article/Terms-of-Use?language=en_US#section17 https://help.ticketmaster.com/s/article/Terms-of-Use?languag... What we need is a law invalidating contracts with blanket requirements to give up consumer protections and legal recourse against companies
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      That's fine. 1000 summary judgements in small claims court will be expensive for Ticketmaster.
      - RHSeeger 6y ago
        To be fair, so is 1,000 arbitrations.
    - alexfromapex 6y ago
      Arbitration is a terrible concept that needs to be outlawed forever
      - function_seven 6y ago
        Arbitration clauses, for sure. But not the whole concept. Although this could be a blessing in disguise. Maybe the fine people over at FairShake and Keller Lenkner can take this on like they did for DoorDash[0]? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798118
    - rhino369 6y ago
      Companies need to be careful with these clauses. Postmates is deep trouble because thousands of employees actually demanded arbitration, and now Postmates is trying to get a class action instead of thousands of arbitrations. Arbitration aren't the get out of jail card many organizations believe them to be.
      - wahern 6y ago
        It seems that the issue exposed by DoorDash and Postmates is easily resolved by inserting volume discount language into the contract with the arbitrator. A competitor to DoorDash's arbitrator has already started making that sales pitch. It's possible the fees could be discounted for these existing disputes, too, though perhaps doing so during the pendency of a dispute might be risky--politically, if not legally. In any event, I wouldn't expect this loophole to stay open for long. Occasions for such schadenfreude aren't usually repeated.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  As a European who semi-regularly runs into this sort of issue (companies not upholding their own terms of service[2]), who in these several European countries could fine them? Are you talking of local market authorities like the Dutch ACM[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Authority_for_Consumers_and_Markets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Authority_for_Cons... [2] Recent examples are my registrar locking me out of my domain's DNS management (the TOS says I will be given access as part of the service) until I agree to some third party privacy policy that basically wants carte blanche data processing; and a peer to peer lending site suspended withdrawals without a provision for denying me my money in the TOS (unless they are insolvent or are physically unable to reach their keyboards, basically). Other than taking them to court and causing a whole lot of trouble for myself (as the damages amount to peanuts), I'm not sure what options I have here and the power relation feels a tad imbalanced.

Someone1234 6y ago

Even if it isn't legal are people really going to assert their rights in court? That's one of the major problems with having weak consumer protections in the US. If this happened in one of several European countries ticketmaster could be fined, but in the US each citizen needs to sue in small claims or will be forced into arbitration that may cost more than the claim is worth (essentially nullifying their rights, or losing money to assert them). Arguing that your rights have been violated with their customer services is a waste of time.

jacobr1 6y ago
While less efficient than regulatory action, the US does have a mechanism for this: class-action lawsuits.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Class action lawsuits are just another method of regulatory capture. The settlement from the last Ticketbastard class action was a $2 discount on expedited shipping and a voucher for a free show of your choice, to be chosen from an empty list.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  > YOU AGREE TO WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL OR TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION. https://help.ticketmaster.com/s/article/Terms-of-Use?language=en_US#section17 https://help.ticketmaster.com/s/article/Terms-of-Use?languag... What we need is a law invalidating contracts with blanket requirements to give up consumer protections and legal recourse against companies
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    That's fine. 1000 summary judgements in small claims court will be expensive for Ticketmaster.
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      To be fair, so is 1,000 arbitrations.
  - alexfromapex 6y ago
    Arbitration is a terrible concept that needs to be outlawed forever
    - function_seven 6y ago
      Arbitration clauses, for sure. But not the whole concept. Although this could be a blessing in disguise. Maybe the fine people over at FairShake and Keller Lenkner can take this on like they did for DoorDash[0]? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798118
  - rhino369 6y ago
    Companies need to be careful with these clauses. Postmates is deep trouble because thousands of employees actually demanded arbitration, and now Postmates is trying to get a class action instead of thousands of arbitrations. Arbitration aren't the get out of jail card many organizations believe them to be.
    - wahern 6y ago
      It seems that the issue exposed by DoorDash and Postmates is easily resolved by inserting volume discount language into the contract with the arbitrator. A competitor to DoorDash's arbitrator has already started making that sales pitch. It's possible the fees could be discounted for these existing disputes, too, though perhaps doing so during the pendency of a dispute might be risky--politically, if not legally. In any event, I wouldn't expect this loophole to stay open for long. Occasions for such schadenfreude aren't usually repeated.
lucb1e 6y ago
As a European who semi-regularly runs into this sort of issue (companies not upholding their own terms of service[2]), who in these several European countries could fine them? Are you talking of local market authorities like the Dutch ACM[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Authority_for_Consumers_and_Markets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Authority_for_Cons... [2] Recent examples are my registrar locking me out of my domain's DNS management (the TOS says I will be given access as part of the service) until I agree to some third party privacy policy that basically wants carte blanche data processing; and a peer to peer lending site suspended withdrawals without a provision for denying me my money in the TOS (unless they are insolvent or are physically unable to reach their keyboards, basically). Other than taking them to court and causing a whole lot of trouble for myself (as the damages amount to peanuts), I'm not sure what options I have here and the power relation feels a tad imbalanced.